Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #210035 > unrolled thread

System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the  (Debian) setup make a difference?) Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> - 2019-06-18 14:30 +0200
    Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2019-06-18 15:10 +0200
    Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-18 15:20 +0200
    Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-06-18 15:20 +0200
      Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-06-18 16:10 +0200
        Example of an M2 form factor SSD (was: Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-06-19 14:30 +0200
          Re: M2 form factor SSD Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2019-06-19 18:10 +0200
      Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> - 2019-06-18 17:30 +0200
        Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-06-18 17:40 +0200
          Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-06-18 17:50 +0200
        Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2019-06-18 17:50 +0200
          Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> - 2019-06-18 18:20 +0200
            Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-18 21:10 +0200
              Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> - 2019-06-18 23:20 +0200
                Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-06-19 00:00 +0200
                  Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> - 2019-06-19 12:00 +0200
                    Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-19 12:30 +0200
                      Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-06-19 12:50 +0200
                        Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-19 13:20 +0200
                          Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> - 2019-06-19 13:40 +0200
                            Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-19 14:10 +0200
                              Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> - 2019-06-20 09:00 +0200
                                Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-20 09:40 +0200
                    Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-06-19 16:00 +0200
                Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2019-06-19 00:00 +0200
                Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-19 01:40 +0200
    Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Jochen Spieker <ml@well-adjusted.de> - 2019-06-18 21:50 +0200
    Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2019-06-19 03:40 +0200
      Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-19 04:10 +0200
      Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-06-19 12:50 +0200
        Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2019-06-20 02:20 +0200
      Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> - 2019-06-21 09:30 +0200
        Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-21 12:20 +0200
          Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> - 2019-06-21 15:10 +0200
            Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-06-22 22:30 +0200
              Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> - 2019-06-23 07:50 +0200
                Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-23 08:50 +0200
                  Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> - 2019-06-23 15:50 +0200
                    Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-23 17:10 +0200
        Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can  the (Debian) setup make a difference?) David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2019-06-22 01:10 +0200
          Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?) Erik Josefsson <erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> - 2019-06-22 11:50 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#210035 — System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

This is another quite open question that I probably could research 
myself, if I had the time.

As far as I understand, it is quite recent that SD cards are fast and 
large enough to be able to carry and run an entire Debian instance.

If this is the case, maybe there is only theory available regarding 
whether you can make a computer "run faster" on a 64GB SD card than on a 
32GB SD card when cards are otherwise identical.

I don't really know how swap works on a standard computer, even less how 
it works when the whole computer runs from/on a SD card.

Swap is supposed to be make your computer pretend that you have more RAM 
than it actually has, but if the whole computer is running from/on RAM 
(or is it?), then what does swap mean?

On Teres-I with redpill RC2 (now there is a RC3 that I have not yet 
installed) an unfortunate website with pop up commercials (like dn.se) 
can eat all performance there is and freeze the mouse for hours. I would 
guess that could have been fixed on a normal computer with "more RAM", 
i.e., "more swap"? But is the same true for e.g. Teres-I?


Second question is if it is meaningful to buy a "super duper blazing 
fast" SD card for the task to run a whole Debian system?

There is a very expensive 64GB SD card from SanDisk that is called 
Extreme Pro that costs twice as much as same size Extreme Plus. Specs 
say it is "super duper blazing fast" for video in "Ultra HD 4K", but 
would Pro also be faster than Plus for the task of running Thunderbird 
and Firefox at the same time?


Best regards.

//Erik

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#210039 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

Erik Josefsson wrote:
...
> I don't really know how swap works on a standard computer, even less how 
> it works when the whole computer runs from/on a SD card.
>
> Swap is supposed to be make your computer pretend that you have more RAM 
> than it actually has, but if the whole computer is running from/on RAM 
> (or is it?), then what does swap mean?
>
> On Teres-I with redpill RC2 (now there is a RC3 that I have not yet 
> installed) an unfortunate website with pop up commercials (like dn.se) 
> can eat all performance there is and freeze the mouse for hours. I would 
> guess that could have been fixed on a normal computer with "more RAM", 
> i.e., "more swap"? But is the same true for e.g. Teres-I?
>
>
> Second question is if it is meaningful to buy a "super duper blazing 
> fast" SD card for the task to run a whole Debian system?
>
> There is a very expensive 64GB SD card from SanDisk that is called 
> Extreme Pro that costs twice as much as same size Extreme Plus. Specs 
> say it is "super duper blazing fast" for video in "Ultra HD 4K", but 
> would Pro also be faster than Plus for the task of running Thunderbird 
> and Firefox at the same time?

  so much would depend upon the IO bus design for all
of these questions.

  swap is just a place for tasks to be paged out if
your system runs out of memory.

  the contention between swap and the rest of the IO
on the channels would be the deciding factor as to
how much it makes a difference.

  some people now run without any swap space at all
(memory isn't that expensive and so why not).  i don't
because at times i edit large pictures and so the
extra memory space is needed.


  songbird

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210041 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Quoting Erik Josefsson (2019-06-18 14:26:57)
> This is another quite open question that I probably could research 
> myself, if I had the time.
> 
> As far as I understand, it is quite recent that SD cards are fast and 
> large enough to be able to carry and run an entire Debian instance.
> 
> If this is the case, maybe there is only theory available regarding 
> whether you can make a computer "run faster" on a 64GB SD card than on 
> a 32GB SD card when cards are otherwise identical.
> 
> I don't really know how swap works on a standard computer, even less 
> how it works when the whole computer runs from/on a SD card.
> 
> Swap is supposed to be make your computer pretend that you have more 
> RAM than it actually has, but if the whole computer is running from/on 
> RAM (or is it?), then what does swap mean?

Good explanation on swap: https://www.linuxatemyram.com/


> On Teres-I with redpill RC2 (now there is a RC3 that I have not yet 
> installed) an unfortunate website with pop up commercials (like dn.se) 
> can eat all performance there is and freeze the mouse for hours. I 
> would guess that could have been fixed on a normal computer with "more 
> RAM", i.e., "more swap"? But is the same true for e.g. Teres-I?
> 
> 
> Second question is if it is meaningful to buy a "super duper blazing 
> fast" SD card for the task to run a whole Debian system?
> 
> There is a very expensive 64GB SD card from SanDisk that is called 
> Extreme Pro that costs twice as much as same size Extreme Plus. Specs 
> say it is "super duper blazing fast" for video in "Ultra HD 4K", but 
> would Pro also be faster than Plus for the task of running Thunderbird 
> and Firefox at the same time?

Recent research on SD card performance:
https://github.com/ThomasKaiser/Knowledge/blob/master/articles/A1_and_A2_rated_SD_cards.md


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210042 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

Hi Erik,

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:26:57PM +0200, Erik Josefsson wrote:
> As far as I understand, it is quite recent that SD cards are fast and large
> enough to be able to carry and run an entire Debian instance.

Not really recent. I've run Debian sarge on a 128MiB CompactFlash
card and I'm sure people have done more extreme things than that.

> If this is the case, maybe there is only theory available regarding whether
> you can make a computer "run faster" on a 64GB SD card than on a 32GB SD
> card when cards are otherwise identical.

So firstly, SD cards in the general case aren't that performant or
reliable. You can spend more money to get faster and more durable
ones. The unique selling point of SD cards is the form factor –
they're small and have no moving parts. They're meant to go in
devices like cameras, dashcams, cell phones, etc.

Given two SD cards that differ only in capacity, I would not expect
their performance to differ. The bigger one may last longer (survive
more writes) due to you using less of its capacity.

> I don't really know how swap works on a standard computer, even less how it
> works when the whole computer runs from/on a SD card.

It doesn't work any differently, except that swapping onto SD
generally isn't great because they aren't that fast and they often
have fairly low write endurance.

SD cards aren't like SSDs, even though they are both made from a
form of flash memory. Modern SSDs and flash drives have much better
write endurance than modern SD cards.

> Swap is supposed to be make your computer pretend that you have more RAM
> than it actually has, but if the whole computer is running from/on RAM (or
> is it?), then what does swap mean?

I don't know why you have introduced the concept of a computer
running from memory, as that is a completely different topic. A
computer running from SD card isn't much different to a computer
running from an HDD or an SSD. It's just a block device.

Now, due to the low write endurance of your typical SD card, some
people — especially those making small single-purpose devices — do
configure things to load off of the SD card into memory and then run
largely from memory. This prevents writes into the SD card, thus
prolonging its life. But that tactic is not in any way required when
using SD cards and can be done with any block device.

> On Teres-I with redpill RC2 (now there is a RC3 that I have not yet
> installed) an unfortunate website with pop up commercials (like dn.se) can
> eat all performance there is and freeze the mouse for hours. I would guess
> that could have been fixed on a normal computer with "more RAM", i.e., "more
> swap"? But is the same true for e.g. Teres-I?

Sorry I am unfamiliar with Teres and redpill.

> Second question is if it is meaningful to buy a "super duper blazing fast"
> SD card for the task to run a whole Debian system?

If you wish to run a general purpose operating system off of an SD
card then yes I would suggest that the fastest and more durable one
you can afford would be a good idea. But also consider a regular
SSD as some of the low capacity ones may compare favourably in
price with a specialist SD card.

> There is a very expensive 64GB SD card from SanDisk that is called Extreme
> Pro that costs twice as much as same size Extreme Plus. Specs say it is
> "super duper blazing fast" for video in "Ultra HD 4K", but would Pro also be
> faster than Plus for the task of running Thunderbird and Firefox at the same
> time?

Running big apps like that will benefit more from having enough
memory. After that is satisfied, fast storage will certainly help.
You'll have to look at the exact specifications of Plus vs Pro.

What are you trying to achieve?

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210043 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

<intentionally top posting, as I didn't see a good place to make this comment 
within the previous text>

About the only thing I'd add to what others have said is that they now make 
SSDs in a different form factor -- if you look for them, they start with an M, 
iirc -- they are in the same size range as an SD card (well, a regular one, 
not a micro).  

You need a special socket to plug them into, and I'm not sure which (if any) 
single board computers (I'm trying to use that to refer to computers using a 
system on a chip) have that kind of socket.

<nothing added below here>

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 09:14:19 AM Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi Erik,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:26:57PM +0200, Erik Josefsson wrote:
> > As far as I understand, it is quite recent that SD cards are fast and
> > large enough to be able to carry and run an entire Debian instance.
> 
> Not really recent. I've run Debian sarge on a 128MiB CompactFlash
> card and I'm sure people have done more extreme things than that.
> 
> > If this is the case, maybe there is only theory available regarding
> > whether you can make a computer "run faster" on a 64GB SD card than on a
> > 32GB SD card when cards are otherwise identical.
> 
> So firstly, SD cards in the general case aren't that performant or
> reliable. You can spend more money to get faster and more durable
> ones. The unique selling point of SD cards is the form factor –
> they're small and have no moving parts. They're meant to go in
> devices like cameras, dashcams, cell phones, etc.
> 
> Given two SD cards that differ only in capacity, I would not expect
> their performance to differ. The bigger one may last longer (survive
> more writes) due to you using less of its capacity.
> 
> > I don't really know how swap works on a standard computer, even less how
> > it works when the whole computer runs from/on a SD card.
> 
> It doesn't work any differently, except that swapping onto SD
> generally isn't great because they aren't that fast and they often
> have fairly low write endurance.
> 
> SD cards aren't like SSDs, even though they are both made from a
> form of flash memory. Modern SSDs and flash drives have much better
> write endurance than modern SD cards.
> 
> > Swap is supposed to be make your computer pretend that you have more RAM
> > than it actually has, but if the whole computer is running from/on RAM
> > (or is it?), then what does swap mean?
> 
> I don't know why you have introduced the concept of a computer
> running from memory, as that is a completely different topic. A
> computer running from SD card isn't much different to a computer
> running from an HDD or an SSD. It's just a block device.
> 
> Now, due to the low write endurance of your typical SD card, some
> people — especially those making small single-purpose devices — do
> configure things to load off of the SD card into memory and then run
> largely from memory. This prevents writes into the SD card, thus
> prolonging its life. But that tactic is not in any way required when
> using SD cards and can be done with any block device.
> 
> > On Teres-I with redpill RC2 (now there is a RC3 that I have not yet
> > installed) an unfortunate website with pop up commercials (like dn.se)
> > can eat all performance there is and freeze the mouse for hours. I would
> > guess that could have been fixed on a normal computer with "more RAM",
> > i.e., "more swap"? But is the same true for e.g. Teres-I?
> 
> Sorry I am unfamiliar with Teres and redpill.
> 
> > Second question is if it is meaningful to buy a "super duper blazing
> > fast" SD card for the task to run a whole Debian system?
> 
> If you wish to run a general purpose operating system off of an SD
> card then yes I would suggest that the fastest and more durable one
> you can afford would be a good idea. But also consider a regular
> SSD as some of the low capacity ones may compare favourably in
> price with a specialist SD card.
> 
> > There is a very expensive 64GB SD card from SanDisk that is called
> > Extreme Pro that costs twice as much as same size Extreme Plus. Specs
> > say it is "super duper blazing fast" for video in "Ultra HD 4K", but
> > would Pro also be faster than Plus for the task of running Thunderbird
> > and Firefox at the same time?
> 
> Running big apps like that will benefit more from having enough
> memory. After that is satisfied, fast storage will certainly help.
> You'll have to look at the exact specifications of Plus vs Pro.
> 
> What are you trying to achieve?
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210098 — Example of an M2 form factor SSD (was: Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 10:06:41 AM rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> About the only thing I'd add to what others have said is that they now make
> SSDs in a different form factor -- if you look for them, they start with an
> M, iirc -- they are in the same size range as an SD card (well, a regular
> one, not a micro).
> 
> You need a special socket to plug them into, and I'm not sure which (if
> any) single board computers (I'm trying to use that to refer to computers
> using a system on a chip) have that kind of socket.

Here is a link to an M2 form factor SSD (and some details from the 
description):  (The example is a Samsung, and I found the example at Newegg, 
but this should not be considered an endorsement or advertising for either of 
them.)

By the way, the dimensions of these units vary, and the dimensions are encoded 
in the form factor, for example, the example M2 2280 device is 22 mm  wide by 
80 mm long (about 1" x 3").  (And 2.38 mm (~0.1 inch) thick, but, as far as I 
know, the 2 in the M2 does not designate thickness -- I could be  wrong.)

<quote>
SAMSUNG 970 EVO PLUS M.2 2280 250GB PCIe Gen 3.0 x4, NVMe 1.3 V-NAND 3-bit MLC 
Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) MZ-V7S250B/AM 

https://www.newegg.com/samsung-970-evo-
plus-250gb/p/N82E16820147741?Item=N82E16820147741&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=GD061919&cm_mmc=EMC-
GD061919-_-landing-_-Item-_-20-147-741

...

Form Factor
M.2 2280
Capacity
250GB
...

Dimensions & Weight

Height
    2.38mm

Width
    22.15mm

Depth
    80.15mm

Weight
    8.00g
</quote>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210106 — Re: M2 form factor SSD

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

we have 3 HP 820 Elitebooks, they all have the m.2 slot.

they are plug and play, a second SSD in all respects. I bought another 
one on eBay a couple months ago: 512GB 512G NGFF M2 2242 SATA SSD 
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/512GB-512G-NGFF-M2-2242-SATA-SSD-Solid-State-HDD-hard-drive-for-HP-Lenovo-Acer/123087137857?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649> 
$80 usd with shipping. the "2242" is the length, very important 
https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/KFQAAOSw5nxabvBj/s-l200.jpg The 
m.2 is my boot drive, the conventional 2.5" ssd is my secondary drive

On 6/19/19 5:19 AM, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 10:06:41 AM rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > About the only thing I'd add to what others have said is that they 
> now make
>
> > SSDs in a different form factor -- if you look for them, they start 
> with an
>
> > M, iirc -- they are in the same size range as an SD card (well, a 
> regular
>
> > one, not a micro).
>
> >
>
> > You need a special socket to plug them into, and I'm not sure which (if
>
> > any) single board computers (I'm trying to use that to refer to 
> computers
>
> > using a system on a chip) have that kind of socket.
>
> Here is a link to an M2 form factor SSD (and some details from the 
> description): (The example is a Samsung, and I found the example at 
> Newegg, but this should not be considered an endorsement or 
> advertising for either of them.)
>
> By the way, the dimensions of these units vary, and the dimensions are 
> encoded in the form factor, for example, the example M2 2280 device is 
> 22 mm wide by 80 mm long (about 1" x 3"). (And 2.38 mm (~0.1 inch) 
> thick, but, as far as I know, the 2 in the M2 does not designate 
> thickness -- I could be wrong.)
>
> <quote>
>
> SAMSUNG 970 EVO PLUS M.2 2280 250GB PCIe Gen 3.0 x4, NVMe 1.3 V-NAND 
> 3-bit MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) MZ-V7S250B/AM
>
> https://www.newegg.com/samsung-970-evo-plus-250gb/p/N82E16820147741?Item=N82E16820147741&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=GD061919&cm_mmc=EMC-GD061919-_-landing-_-Item-_-20-147-741
>
> ...
>
> F <javascript:void(0);>orm Factor
>
> M.2 2280
>
> Capacity
>
> 250GB
>
> ...
>
> Dimensions & Weight
>
> Height
>
> 2.38mm
>
> Width
>
> 22.15mm
>
> Depth
>
> 80.15mm
>
> Weight
>
> 8.00g
>
> </quote>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210048 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Andy, thanks for taking time!

On 6/18/19 3:14 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
>> There is a very expensive 64GB SD card from SanDisk that is called Extreme
>> Pro that costs twice as much as same size Extreme Plus. Specs say it is
>> "super duper blazing fast" for video in "Ultra HD 4K", but would Pro also be
>> faster than Plus for the task of running Thunderbird and Firefox at the same
>> time?
> Running big apps like that will benefit more from having enough
> memory. After that is satisfied, fast storage will certainly help.
> You'll have to look at the exact specifications of Plus vs Pro.

Here's probably one of my large white spots, but what do you mean with 
"enough memory"?

If the computer runs from the SD card, the memory you are talking about 
is also on that same SD card, no?

If yes, then optimizing available SD card memory (e.g. 32GB or 64GB) 
would yield different performance results, but that does not seem to be 
the case!

>
> What are you trying to achieve?

I want to make up my mind whether I will have the time to use Teres-I 
with redpill RC3 at work (i.e. in school).

Thanks again!

//Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210051 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 11:21:51 AM Erik Josefsson wrote:
> Hi Andy, thanks for taking time!
> 
> On 6/18/19 3:14 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
> >> There is a very expensive 64GB SD card from SanDisk that is called
> >> Extreme Pro that costs twice as much as same size Extreme Plus. Specs
> >> say it is "super duper blazing fast" for video in "Ultra HD 4K", but
> >> would Pro also be faster than Plus for the task of running Thunderbird
> >> and Firefox at the same time?
> > 
> > Running big apps like that will benefit more from having enough
> > memory. After that is satisfied, fast storage will certainly help.
> > You'll have to look at the exact specifications of Plus vs Pro.
> 
> Here's probably one of my large white spots, but what do you mean with
> "enough memory"?
> 
> If the computer runs from the SD card, the memory you are talking about
> is also on that same SD card, no?

I should let Andy speak for himself, but, I believe the answer is no -- 
earlier in the thread something made me think you were confusing RAM with 
memory on the SD card -- RAM is not on the SD card, it is "closer" to the CPU, 
on or near the motherboard.  (I don't know whether an SOC (System on a Chip) 
includes the RAM on the chip -- if not, it is much closer, physically and 
electrically to the CPU than the SD card.


> 
> If yes, then optimizing available SD card memory (e.g. 32GB or 64GB)
> would yield different performance results, but that does not seem to be
> the case!
> 
> > What are you trying to achieve?
> 
> I want to make up my mind whether I will have the time to use Teres-I
> with redpill RC3 at work (i.e. in school).
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> //Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210053 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: 
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 11:21:51 AM Erik Josefsson wrote:
> > If the computer runs from the SD card, the memory you are talking about
> > is also on that same SD card, no?
> 
> I should let Andy speak for himself, but, I believe the answer is no -- 
> earlier in the thread something made me think you were confusing RAM with 
> memory on the SD card -- RAM is not on the SD card, it is "closer" to the CPU, 
> on or near the motherboard.  (I don't know whether an SOC (System on a Chip) 
> includes the RAM on the chip -- if not, it is much closer, physically and 
> electrically to the CPU than the SD card.

Some SoCs are literally mounted directly beneath a RAM chip;
some have a fixed amount of RAM built-in; some use an external
RAM supply (which may be soldered or socketed).

The useful ways of generically referring to these things:

memory = RAM, volatile on power loss

storage = "disk" of some variety, retaining information through
          power loss

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210052 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:22 AM Erik Josefsson <
erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the computer runs from the SD card, the memory you are talking about is
> also on that same SD card, no?
>
No. The SD card is analogous to the hard drive, not to the RAM.

> Thanks again!
>
> //Erik
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210059 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 6/18/19 5:46 PM, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>
>     If the computer runs from the SD card, the memory you are talking
>     about is also on that same SD card, no?
>
> No. The SD card is analogous to the hard drive, not to the RAM.

Thanks! Now things start to make sense again :-)

That means there could be some margin of performance optimization of 
Teres-I, but the non-SD-card hardware together with the "IO bus design" 
songbird mentioned (thank you songbird!) is non-configurable, i.e. the 
real bottleneck.

I need either to drop gui or figure out a way to make the Teres-I laptop 
perform almost as good as a Lenovo N22-20 Chromebook model 80SF (which 
is what the kids had last year).

Or drop Teres-I.

//Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210068 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Quoting Erik Josefsson (2019-06-18 18:15:39)
> On 6/18/19 5:46 PM, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> >
> >     If the computer runs from the SD card, the memory you are 
> >     talking about is also on that same SD card, no?
> >
> > No. The SD card is analogous to the hard drive, not to the RAM.
> 
> Thanks! Now things start to make sense again :-)
> 
> That means there could be some margin of performance optimization of 
> Teres-I, but the non-SD-card hardware together with the "IO bus 
> design" songbird mentioned (thank you songbird!) is non-configurable, 
> i.e. the real bottleneck.
> 
> I need either to drop gui or figure out a way to make the Teres-I 
> laptop perform almost as good as a Lenovo N22-20 Chromebook model 80SF 
> (which is what the kids had last year).

Such a Lenovo Chromebook outperforms the Teres-1 on every way.

You should use Teres-I not for its speed but its price and ethics: 
https://www.olimex.com/Products/DIY-Laptop/


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210072 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 6/18/19 9:04 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> I need either to drop gui or figure out a way to make the Teres-I
>> laptop perform almost as good as a Lenovo N22-20 Chromebook model 80SF
>> (which is what the kids had last year).
> Such a Lenovo Chromebook outperforms the Teres-1 on every way.

I know, that's why I wrote "almost as good".

The Ubuntu version that Teres-I comes with feels almost as good, which 
is why I still don't understand why running Debian from the SD-card doesn't.

Maybe it's just a technical fact that it can never do, regardless of 
optimizations and settings, and that I didn't get that memo?

> You should use Teres-I not for its speed but its price and ethics:
> https://www.olimex.com/Products/DIY-Laptop/

The real world cost of using Teres-I with a Pure Blend can only be 
justified with the latter.

The only other, in that sense, ethical laptop I know of are the ones you 
can buy from puri.sm.

Because PureOS is a Debian Pure Blend, isn't it?

//Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210076 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

Nicholas Geovanis wrote: 
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 4:10 PM Erik Josefsson <
> erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > The Ubuntu version that Teres-I comes with feels almost as good, which is
> > why I still don't understand why running Debian from the SD-card doesn't.
> >
> Then I would be interested to know which release of Ubuntu and see an
> installed package list. But i will hit the websites, no need to post here.

He seems to be comparing speed of Ubuntu on an internal eMMC
storage (16GB, 8 bit interface) to the speed of Debian on an
SD card interface (either 4 bit or 1 bit interface, depending 
on what they chose).

The eMMC should transfer twice as fast at minimum, and possibly
8x as fast as the SD card.

-dsr- (I looked at the spec.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210090 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Dan,

On 6/18/19 11:57 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 4:10 PM Erik Josefsson <
>> erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Ubuntu version that Teres-I comes with feels almost as good, which is
>>> why I still don't understand why running Debian from the SD-card doesn't.
>>>
>> Then I would be interested to know which release of Ubuntu and see an
>> installed package list. But i will hit the websites, no need to post here.
> He seems to be comparing speed of Ubuntu on an internal eMMC
> storage (16GB, 8 bit interface) to the speed of Debian on an
> SD card interface (either 4 bit or 1 bit interface, depending
> on what they chose).
>
> The eMMC should transfer twice as fast at minimum, and possibly
> 8x as fast as the SD card.

I obviously didn't get that memo.

> -dsr- (I looked at the spec.)
>
You don't happen to see in the spec. which boot key to press to get 
Teres-I to start a netinstall from USB?

The new Debian-Installer worked perfectly fine with an old HP 
workstation a couple of weeks ago.

https://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/

I'd love to try it on Teres-I.

Thanks a million!

//Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210091 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Quoting Erik Josefsson (2019-06-19 11:53:51)
> You don't happen to see in the spec. which boot key to press to get 
> Teres-I to start a netinstall from USB?

Whereas boot from USB is (nowadays, wasn't always) comon among 
IBM-compatible PCs, that is not common among ARM devices, and it is not 
supported on Allwinner A64 SoC used in (current release of) Teres-I.

Here is the technical details: https://linux-sunxi.org/BROM#A64

...or more accurately an USB-based "FEL" mode exists but is... complex. 
If you really want to try that route (not recommended!) then see also 
https://linux-sunxi.org/FEL and if not yet scared off check how to 
enable it at https://linux-sunxi.org/Olimex_Teres-A64#FEL_mode

In short, you really _really_ want netinstall from MicroSD!


> The new Debian-Installer worked perfectly fine with an old HP 
> workstation a couple of weeks ago.
> 
> https://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/
> 
> I'd love to try it on Teres-I.

Teres-I is not yet supported by debian-installer yet - the closest 
approximation I know of is achieved using my build framework.  It's been 
a while since I tested the netinstall image builds myself (as you know I 
have been super busy refining the the prebuilt images that you have been 
using) but it should be something like this:

  git clone https://salsa.debian.org/tinker-team/box
  make images/d-i/core_teres1-teres1-buster.img.gz


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210092 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> In short, you really _really_ want netinstall from MicroSD!

What about debootstrap? IS it possible to use it for that SoC?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210094 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Quoting deloptes (2019-06-19 12:42:13)
> Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 
> > In short, you really _really_ want netinstall from MicroSD!
> 
> What about debootstrap? IS it possible to use it for that SoC?

Certainly.  Debian-installer uses debootstrap internally so that is a 
must.  The images Erik has used until now - http://box.redpill.dk/ - are 
also built with debootstrap (or rather the more flexible multistrap) 
using the framework I referenced in my previous post: 
https://salsa.debian.org/tinker-team/box

My point in above quote is which _medium_ you want to boot from 
initially on a Teres-I: MicroSD rather than USB (not which method of 
installation you want).

My work specifically explores how to avoid the tedious process of 
running debian-installer on the relatively slow Teres-I but reach _same_ 
result as if doing so - because in my experience running debootstrap 
directly can easily lead to a slightly broken system.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210096 — Re: System on a chip - performance relative size and setup (how can the (Debian) setup make a difference?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 6/19/19 1:15 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> Quoting deloptes (2019-06-19 12:42:13)
>> Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>>> In short, you really_really_  want netinstall from MicroSD!
>> What about debootstrap? IS it possible to use it for that SoC?
> Certainly.  Debian-installer uses debootstrap internally so that is a
> must.  The images Erik has used until now -http://box.redpill.dk/  - are
> also built with debootstrap (or rather the more flexible multistrap)
> using the framework I referenced in my previous post:
> https://salsa.debian.org/tinker-team/box
>
> My point in above quote is which_medium_  you want to boot from
> initially on a Teres-I: MicroSD rather than USB (not which method of
> installation you want).
>
> My work specifically explores how to avoid the tedious process of
> running debian-installer on the relatively slow Teres-I but reach_same_  
> result as if doing so - because in my experience running debootstrap
> directly can easily lead to a slightly broken system.

It is quite possible that my impression that the Ubuntu instance that 
Teres-I is shipped with is significantly faster than your redpills is 
just imaginary, but then Dan Ritter seemed to confirm that that "native 
Ubuntu" probably is 2x to 8x faster.

If "native Ubuntu" is faster than "SD redpill", then I wonder how the 
Olimex people got their Ubuntu installed in the first place? They 
couldn't have used the Debian Installer, could they?

Or, a better question, is it within reach to run a Debian Pure Blend on 
Teres-I without an external SD card? If so, is Dan Ritter right that it 
will be 2x to 8x faster?

//Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web